Weight-space programming sets every weight of a feed-forward network by hand, from an explicit specification of the desired computation, with no gradient descent and no training data anywhere in the construction. We ask how far a large language model can carry this practice, zero-shot, across games of deliberately increasing difficulty. We design a four-rung ladder (Nim, tic-tac-toe, two sizes of Connect Four, and a chess endgame) spanning four axes of difficulty, and build a second, independent network at each rung, using a structurally unrelated game at matched difficulty, to separate what a rung's finding says about the difficulty level from what it says about the one game used to measure it. Ten networks are built and independently verified. Six admit a complete, non-statistical proof of correctness against an independent oracle. The chess-endgame rung is exact where correctness is cheap, move legality and, in one network, an exact one-ply mate detector, and collapses where it is expensive, composing a multi-move mating plan, from 84.1-100% success at the one-ply tactics it was built to get right down to 0.57-9.13% in full adversarial play; its replicate shows this collapse is an order of magnitude less severe under a shorter required plan and exact rather than heuristic safety checks. The standard-sized rung confirms, by holding hand-set evaluation weights fixed and adding only shallow search, that the remaining gap is an architectural ceiling rather than a matter of engineering effort, and this exact collapse reproduces across two structurally unrelated games. We release all ten networks, their independent oracles, construction-cost measurements, and a cold-prompt protocol for a future cross-model comparison

翻译：暂无翻译